Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 38-point gap between the two loudest voices.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · EU Harmonised Classification (CLP Annex VI) · US NTP Report on Carcinogens · California Proposition 65
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Coverage & match quality
3 ratings · 1 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
Data availability
Not enough to score3 of 23 characterized
Our sources have reference data on 3 of 23 listed ingredients; 20 are uncharacterized in our data — a gap, not a clean bill. That is not enough of the label for a safety score to be honest, so we do not publish one.
Worth a look (2)
ANSES CMR-listedflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
IARC probable carcinogen (Group 2A)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (1)
No data in our sources (20)
Not a verdict — our authorities simply have no reference for these.